Moorland House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care and support was reviewed regularly, and people and those important to them were involved in this process. A resident of the day system was in place, which provided a structured and effective approach to ensuring any changes in need were identified. One relative shared, “I know what is in [person’s] care plan and the home will ask me if there are any changes to be made. Every month we have a review meeting and if there is anything we are concerned about, I raise it and they are on the ball.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, nationally recognised tools, such as those to monitor weight or skin integrity, were used to inform people’s care.

Overall, people had enough to eat and drink. Some feedback identified areas for improvement, including portion sizes, the temperature and quality of meals, and staff awareness of people’s preferences. However, people also told us they had found this was starting to improve. Leaders consistently sought feedback about meals and acted in response to improve people’s dining experience. We found kitchen staff were knowledgeable on people’s dietary needs and preferences.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked well together. There were effective systems in place to communicate and share information which ensured people received the right support at the right time. This included handovers, and daily update meetings. A member of staff told us, “We can share information quickly on the system, but also have our 11 o’clock meeting every day so we are up to date on any changes.” A relative shared, “[Staff] work well as a team, they have been courteous and it has been all hands-on deck. The staff are good at engaging and they are thoughtful.” Records showed key information could be shared easily with relevant agencies, for example in the event of a medical emergency.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to maintain their health. Regular GP visits were carried out which meant people’s health needs were monitored and any concerns were identified and addressed promptly. Records showed timely referrals to relevant professionals where appropriate, such as district nurses, speech and language therapists and dentists. Staff also ensured people’s wellbeing needs were monitored and supported. A staff member told us, “We have a therapy dog who visits us every week that I feel is particularly important for meeting some of our resident's wellbeing needs, especially our residents living with dementia.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were effective systems for monitoring people’s outcomes. For example, leaders completed a monthly analysis of key risk areas, such as falls, weight loss and wounds across the service. The analysis identified emerging themes and highlighted specific people who required closer oversight. For example, where people had developed wounds, their treatment was evaluated and next steps were considered, such as increased monitoring or referrals to relevant healthcare professionals. This supported targeted and timely action, helping to prevent deterioration and improve outcomes for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed. Mental capacity assessments were completed where required and best interest decisions recorded. Staff sought consent when supporting people and had received suitable training to understand the MCA. Staff supported people to have genuine choice and control over their care. A staff member told us, “Even if someone does not have capacity, we always ask them questions, we show them the choices, we give them their options.”